Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2016.

Chairman Trump[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of non-notable book not mentioned in the article, not sure if we should add this to Bibliography of Donald Trump. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We don't need a list of occupational titles he has had when they are not common names. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Major (politician)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to John Major (non-admin closure). Notecardforfree (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. --Nevé–selbert 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to PM page as the primary topic. Hatnote there should serve readers just fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Patar Knight; there are multiple politicians listed at the disambiguation page, but since the primary topic was a politician, it makes sense to send it to his article and rely on the hatnote. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Patar Knight. Hatnote already in place. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Guinea National Library and Archives[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 10#Guinea National Library and Archives

Template:Happy New Year 2015[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. User:Northamerica1000: I think it's safe to delete the related sandbox and testcase templates as WP:G6 or WP:G7 unless there's attribution to be preserved. Or go to TfD/MfD. I'll leave that up to you since you're the main curator of this set of templates. Deryck C. 17:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been new year 2015 for more than a year now, and this has become an implausable search term for something in the distant past. Pppery 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir John Major[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty certain that John Major certifies WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The other "Sir John Major" is rather obscure in comparison to the former prime minister. --Nevé–selbert 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:R from real name[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 10#Template:R from real name

Template:R Alternate search method[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful title for a WP:RCAT redirect. Plainly speaking, all redirects are alternate search methods. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirect was created as a stopgap measure only and should be deleted now that it's purpose is served. The "R Alternate search method" classification template had been applied to a few hundred redirects in early 2009. The Template:R Alternate search method was created as a redirect to a more useful classification until such time as as uses of the "R Alternate search method" classification could be properly fixed. I see now this has been done. - TB (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Redirect at[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is unclear and probably isn't useful as as any WP:RCAT template redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AZX (company)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget AZX {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Deryck C. 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Neelix redirect). It's not a compamy. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: SimonTrew talked to me about changing it not long ago, I'm not a big fan of coloured signatures, so I quite like it this way. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more Neelix nonsense. AZX isn't the name of a company, it's the code/abbrev. for an airline, a stock exchange, etc. The disambiguator prevents its use as a search term, so there isn't any use for it. -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix's reasoning. — Gorthian (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to AZX, which lists several companies that use "AZX" as some form of coded abbreviation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargetto AZX per the Champ --Lenticel (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Orthographic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. If kept, retarget to {{Copyedit}}. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not used at all, don't see why retargeting anywhere could be a better option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect creator here. The target template {{Angle bracket}} encloses text in, well, angle brackets, and these have a variety of uses. One of them is to delineate the orthographic representation of a text, vs. for example the phonemic (which is surrounded in slashes) or the phonetic (square brackets). Ultimately, it might be a better idea to use that as a specific template different from the generic {{Angle bracket}}. This would have the advantage of allowing for some sort of semantic markup, as well as a better choice of one of the many angle bracket characters for this specific use, so I'm thinking about it in terms of {{R with possibilities}}. – Uanfala (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Land Force Northern Area[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation did not exist. Actual organisation was Canadian Forces Northern Area Buckshot06 (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - This appears to be a reasonable case of having a redirect from an incorrect name, although I'm not sure how helpful this really is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we contact someone with a background in either military history, Canadian politics, or both to see this incorrect name has been properly used significantly or not? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Graduation in absentia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. At the very least, the term is now mentioned at the target. I'd be impressed if someone could create an article beyond that of a WP:DICDEF. Anyone is free to impress me by writing an article over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A simple Google search finds many uses of the term. It just means to graduate without attending the graduation ceremony. Let's just add a sentence defining the term to the Graduation article. I'm not sure how much more can be written about the topic. It would be nice to know what percentage of university graduates graduate in absentia, the reasons why they don't attend the ceremony, and how this has changed over time. I don't know whether this has been researched or there are sources who have researched and written about the topic. This redirect derives from the in absentia disambiguation / broad-concept article, which doesn't define the term either, and neither does Wiktionary define it. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Champion: the term is mentioned at the target now, in case that influences your !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix:Then I would suggest weak keep , I say weak because there isn't enough information on the topic in the article IMO. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soyuz 2[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the redirect should point to the 1968 space mission or the rocket. Pinging JustinTime55, author of this edit retargeting the redirect to the mission.

This was made a rocket redirect following Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soyuz-2_(disambiguation) (before which pages were really a mess). The nom states the rocket is primary topic, but there was little discussion on that point.

FWIW, I am in the "rocket" camp. I do not really care either way about which is the primary topic, but I do think there should be consistency, and Soyuz 2 / Soyuz-2 should land (see what I did here?) on the same page, whether it is the rocket or the mission. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The hatnotes lead me to believe that Soyuz 2 (no hyphen) refers to the 1968 mission while Soyuz-2, used in the 2000s, so obviously named after the original Soyuz missions, refers to the rocket. The original missions are all phrased without the hyphen (e.g. Soyuz 3, Soyuz 33), while the rockets are all hyphenated (e.g. Soyuz-2, Soyuz-2-1v). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC) updated 17:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that with the existing hatnotes, the issue about possibly landing on the wrong page can be remedied. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move target over redirect per AngusWOOF. Pppery 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move target over redirect per AngusWOOF. My findings are the same, namely that the version with the dash is primarily used to refer to the rocket and the one without primarily refers to the mission. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kalvin Harries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I think we're heading towards a rough consensus that this is too many typos to be plausible. Deryck C. 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two typos, unlikely. SSTflyer 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO then. Exceptions could be made if the original artist name is difficult to spell. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible. Native English speakers aren't the only users of the English wikipedia, and to anyone who hasn't grown up in an English-majority country, Harries is just about as easy to spell as Qasymbek. – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing that as a typo. It's not like the name is pronounced like Harry's that it would get confused. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't figure out how to get "Harries" to sound like "Harris". I'd be sympathetic if it was the only error, but combining it with "Kalvin" puts it into implausible territory for me. -- Tavix (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Puerile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep in the absence of a consensus on what else to do with it. Deryck C. 17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look up puerile in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing: WP:D5 nonsense, WP:WORLDWIDE. Only Americans have sophomores, and if their sophomores, which I am led to believe are female, presumably I guess from the greek sage Sophos (was she a Lesbian?) can snigger all they like, but if they learned any Latin they would know that Puellam puellis applies just as much to girls and boys. As it does in Late Latin, where it is supplanted by e.g. in Virgil "Virginibus Canto", "I sing for girls and boys" (Oxford tr.) "Virginibus stands for both male and female, though if Virgil sings too much in hexameter I doubt either of them will stand, not even erectio in puellis. WP:NOTDIC, and Wiktionary does not a very good job of it: cos Wikt says it is about boys. No, no no, it is about girls and boys, really, infants is the better translation, it just doesn't make nice poetry, you can't have Virgil "I sing of infants", it doesn't scansion "scan" (I wouold pipe that in an article but don't like doing so into a discussion, that's just confusing others, sorry), not even in English. Dear, dear, me. Certainly this is not sophomoric humor. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, somewhat reluctantly. I can't think of a better place to point this. wiktionary:Puerile is inappropriate. There's no disambig or other obvious target. There's no sourcing to link puerile to sophomoric, Wiktionary doesn't support this, and this is a US-only term anyway. That said, there does seem to be some degree of link between them.
It's not wrong, it's not needed for anything else. I can't see adequate reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, wikt:Puerile is inappropriate because it doesn't exist. But wikt:puerile does. As for Sophomoric humour, the article is general enough so I'm wondering if Puerile humour might not be a better title. – Uanfala (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should puerile redirect to puerile humour (which we don't have an article on)? Or should Puerile humour redirect to Sophomoric humor (which is something of a neologism to conflate the two)? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Juvenile. If we must keep every WP:DICDEF that pops up, let's at least redirect them to one another. Juvenile isn't a great dab page, but it gives a searcher some options; better than the current target. — Gorthian (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or soft redirect to wiktionary. The only relevant entry in Juvenile is the definition at the top, and the meaning is a bit too far off. "Puerile" is mostly used to refer to a kind of humour, so the current target isn't that bad, but given that the term can be applied to things other than humour, a redirect to the broad definition at wiktionary wouldn't be out of place either. – Uanfala (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

State Chairman[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The rough consensus is that this translated title isn't sufficiently precise to refer to anything we've got on this Wikipedia, and the more relevant fuzzy concept doesn't have an article. Deryck C. 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only meaning, see zh:國家主席 as it says it is the title of the head of state in socialist countries. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, nope nope that;s no good. This is the English wikepedia. What would an english speaking audience expect to find from this? Not what a chinese audience would. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation - it's not only used for national heads of state, it's also used in countries with federated states, for chairs of both government groups and large organizations at state level. Wikishovel (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly vague, WP:RFD#D2 by WP:XY, Q.E.D. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Head of state#Single-party states seems to be a retargeting option, although it doesn't cover the specific title "State Chairman". It's probably worth a hatnote from chairman if the bit at Chairman#Usage isn't enough. -- Tavix (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY unless someone wants to add a section at the chairman article to discuss the history and significance of this specific term, as well as its various applications. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Six Sided Pun Vows/KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete that's eligible for speedy. Appears to be vandalism. The formerly named creator User:Six Sided Pun Vows that currently goes by User:Old Naval Rooftops has been notified of this discussion. Mitchumch (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dump Trump[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Stop Trump movement. There is definitely consensus to retain this redirect as signified by the "keep" !votes. The retargeting suggestion to a more narrow and relevant article is a strong one. Seeing no specific objection to a retarget, I'm going to WP:BOLDLY carry it out. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, perhaps even eligible for speedy. Makes no sense. Dat GuyTalkContribs 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to LM2000's proposed target, and hatnote to the current target. My previous argument stands, and is even stronger for LM2000's proposed target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Mitchumch (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This is certainly pejorative, but redirects don't have to be strictly NPOV in their wording. Use of this slogan in protests appears to be picked up and mentioned by a bunch of reliable sources, one example being in The New York Times. However, I'm still wary about including these kinds of political neologisms, and I agree with the Wikipedia guidelines expressing caution. Still, I lean to keeping this.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar Knight. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stop Trump movement "Dump Trump" appears in the opening sentence of that article, it doesn't appear at all in one discussed here except for a headline in one source.LM2000 (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_31&oldid=1088108515"